Slashdot Log In
Google sued as PetsWarehouse Lawsuit Continues.
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Thu Oct 03, 2002 10:38 AM
from the strange-gets-stranger dept.
from the strange-gets-stranger dept.
Ikari Gendou writes "In April, Slashdot reported that Robert Novak, owner of Internet pet store Pets Warehouse filed a $15,000,000US lawsuit against several individuals who made comments about his company's poor service on an Internet mailing list. Also named in it and in the suit that followed were the owner of the mailing list, the owners of several informational sites about the lawsuit, the owners of other forums where the lawsuit was discussed, the attorney for the defense, and several sites that merely ran banner ads promoting the defense fund set up for the lawsuit. Some defendents settled out of fear, and were forced to pay cash, transfer their personal domain names to Novak, or even run banner ads for Petswarehouse on their websites. Now, the attorney for the defense has announced that in round three of the lawsuit, Google has been sued, as well as several other sites that have carried news about the lawsuit, such as search engine Judge-For-Yourself.com and pet stores DoctorDog.com and FerretStore.com. Robert Novak is representing himself in this lawsuit, and thus it is effectively costing him nothing to persue this campaign of harassment. He's already gotten several thousand dollars from settlements and cost the defendents considerably more than that in legal fees. More details should be posted soon here, including court documents that tell why Google was added to the suit."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Google sued as PetsWarehouse Lawsuit Continues.
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 988 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Re:Minor point (Score:5, Interesting)
Want to really make him hurt? Just point out that his store really is horrible. Service? Sucks. Price? Sucks! There are much better stores that have better stock, lower prices, and excellent customer service. Two such examples are:
That Pet Place [thatpetplace.com]
Drs. Foster & Smith [drsfostersmith.com]
(Note: I am not affiliated in ANY way with either of those stores mentioned. They had nothing to do with being written here. I put them here. They're not the droids you're looking for. I AM. All of the above is my very own personal opinion, and I stand by it.)
So come get me, big boy! Sue my frigging ass off for enjoying my first ammendment rights. I even live in New York. And I'm bored. It costs me just as much nothing to be sued by you as it does for you to sue me. Let's just frigging GO. =)
Sorry. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Sorry. (Score:5, Funny)
That's too bad, because that infringes on my existing patent of "suing everybody" using the internet.
Re:One Word... (Score:5, Funny)
OMG, THIS d00d IS WALLHAX0R1NG!!!!
Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! (Score:5, Funny)
So, whatever you do, try not to visit his website. Don't hit Shift-reload over and over again. Don't ask all your friends to visit it and hit shift-reload over and over again.
Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! (Score:4, Funny)
until false; do lynx -source http://oh, I don't know/ > /dev/null ; sleep $(( RANDOM / 1024 + 1 )); done
and then accidently hit enter in a Bash shell...
Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:His site hasn't been slashdotted yet! (Score:4, Funny)
lol! It is horribly slow, took about 5 minutes to come up for me. Although, I just left it in the back and kept reading other stuff, checking it every minute or two.
Once you are able to get the main page to load though, scroll down a tad to their message board section, it's hilarious:
New Forum Messages--Join us
Welcome Novak is a moron
Welcome www.petwarehouse.com, not www.petsw...
Welcome Robert Novak sues again!!!
Welcome Robert Novak ate my baby!
Just Conversation seeing eye dogs
Dog Behavior What food is Best
Dog Behavior Wellness Food
Marine Saltwater fish adding calcium
Re:Just make him look like a dumbass (Score:5, Insightful)
Same with his fellow Novak, I guess. He must know that the lawsuits are frivolous and that his name is mud among everyone who's ever heard of him. No matter--he keeps suing and keeps collecting from people who can't afford a protracted legal action, and so by his lights, he's won.
hyacinthus.
the slashdot army... (Score:4, Interesting)
Which troops would he rally? Do you think that a platoon of geeks bearing down on Novak's mansion would change things?
No, but a quarter million geeks pounding away at his website address every 12 hours (when the story gets inadvertantly re-posted) can keep his bandwidth maxed out without letting any "customers" through.
Plus, slashdot viewers are not what most people would consider "shy" in the online world, so if given a rousing "Sons of Scotland" speech from Mr. Taco, it's probable that you'd soon have millions of messageboard posts and emails to friends and quick-n-dirty websites thrown up on stupid/clever pun-ful domain names. We could bleed Novak dry just on the cost of all the paper he'd need to file suit against all these individuals, and their hosting companies, and the search engines who list them, and the PC manufacturers who sold them the computers they commited the 'harassment' from, and their lawyers, and ... their pets, for not frequenting his establishment...
what is right (Score:4, Insightful)
Novak is a pathetic moron. If he comes after me, I will drop him like a bad habit. He already read the mention of him on my site.
Part of the problem is that the people did settle instead of filing a motion to dismiss or a summary judgment motion. I can understand why they would settle for a nuisance amount. If a motion for summary judgment had been done, the case would have been kicked.
bad page! bad page!! (Score:4, Funny)
I bet he was teased in high school and wants to get back at all the bullies.
*sigh*
Re:bad page! bad page!! (Score:5, Funny)
This letter is to inform you of a class action lawsuit filed against Pets Warehouse ("the Company") on behalf of the rest of the world ("Everybody").
Everybody asserts that the Company has caused irreversible harm and mental anguish by the use of excessive blink tags and animated gifs on the Company's website. Everybody hereby claims the right to compensation for the aforementioned ailments caused by the Company's lack of taste.
Regards,
Everybody
Be careful what you say about Mr. Novak (Score:5, Funny)
Sued for A'Slashdottin ? (Score:4, Funny)
"slashdottin my site? thats a paddle'in" (jasper)
Re:Sued for A'Slashdottin ? (Score:5, Funny)
Thanks for reminding me! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Be careful what you say about Mr. Novak (Score:5, Informative)
I hate to say it, but Mr. Novak may actually have a valid trademark suit here!
dole budgers/pensioners should slander him (Score:5, Funny)
1, many don't respond to non-personal mail.
2, half of them pretend their just some flatmate if a stranger such as a bailife or summons server knocks on the door. It becomes habit through years of not paying traffic fines & getting cought on the train without a ticket.
3, they've got bugger all assets, at most maybe a old unregisted car that's either seeing out its days as a shed in the front yard, or, but for a old coat hanger & some bog, is due to see out its days as a shed in the front yard.
4, you can't garnish their incomes.
I know, I've been sued 3 times, & in each case they just gave up.
Re:Be careful what you say about Mr. Novak (Score:5, Funny)
Are you implying that you believe Mr. Novak of Petswarehouse.com is a no-good, rat-bastard, slimy, underhanded, weaseling gutless scumbag?
I would advise you to be more cautious in the future. The NGRBSUWGSADL - No-Good Rat Bastard Slimy Underhanded Weaseling Gutless Scumbag Anti-Defamation League - might sue you for libel.
This is good news. (Score:4, Insightful)
-- Dr. Eldarion --
Does anyone have a link to the story about... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm all googled-out right now.
There was a guy who posting anti-VW comments on a automotive enthusiast message board...and the judge threw it out because it was merely opinion and not fact.
Link?
Re:Does anyone have a link to the story about... (Score:4, Insightful)
Keep in mind that usually these lawsuits are not intended to attempt to actually be won in a court of law, they are intended to run the defendant out of resources until they are forced to accept to the terms of the plaintiff just to get themselves out of court. It's becoming more and more common, and is actually a fairly effective way to skirt around the First Amendment, unfortunately.
Several states are now passing laws to make such suits illegal, but for the time being, watch what you say online. And be vague enough so as not to actually be accusing anyone of doing anything :) !
Re:Does anyone have a link to the story about... (Score:5, Informative)
The kinds of suits are called SLAPPs. Many states are attempting to pass anti-SLAPP [thefirstamendment.org] laws, notably California [casp.net]
Re:Does anyone have a link to the story about... (Score:5, Informative)
The case got so much attention all over the world that the dealership dropped the case - it was never tried in court (except the court of public opinion, which was pretty damning). Whether or not the dealership had a leg to stand on is questionable - there may have been slander in the thread, but the original poster may not have been the one to do it.
Mr. Novak has probably bitten off more than he can chew, at least if Google actually goes to court and doesn't just yank the references like they did with Scientology and Operation Clambake [xenu.net].
I've never dealt with Mr. Novak's business, and I know I certainly would not in the future given his legal tactics. I have dealt with Jim Ellis though, and will not in the future because of my experiences with them.
Re:If he's suing news sites... (Score:5, Funny)
Is SlashDot on this list? (Score:5, Interesting)
Nothing is more idiotic than a legal system that allows one person to abridge the security and personal freedom of another, but exercising their own right to continually sue or press frivolous charges against individuals/organizations that cross their path.
We NEED a law to deal with idiotic lawsuits. That is to say, one that carries penalties for those use lawsuits as a continual source of revenue. I think I read earlier that there are some laws regarding individuals that are sue happy, why not make it federal (and get the Canadian government to apply one as well, although Canada seems less lawsuit-crazy than the US).
Lawyers: Who do you want to sue today? - phorm
Re:Is SlashDot on this list? (Score:5, Insightful)
It certainly is that way here in Europe: the side that loses the case usually has to pay both sides' legal fees (at the judge discretion).
But not in the USA. Well, maybe it is in some states, but generally every side has to pay its own legal fees.
Maybe that's the reason we have so few of those plainly stupid suits here, as if you sue someone you have to be really sure of it or face paying up your lawyer and theirs.
Some statistics I read a while ago (might have changed): While in the USA 80% of the suits are between private parties, in Europe only 20% are. The rest are between the State and the defendant, that is, criminal suits.
Until I got to this fundamental difference, I didn't understand why lawyers were so important in the USA.
I thought this was why we had judges! (Score:5, Funny)
But here goes: SUMMARY JUDGEMENT.
You can file suits till the cows come home... BUT WTF?! Summons, subpoena, discovery, WITH NO PRIMA FACIA CASE!
How is he gonna establish jurisdiction?! Suing google?
Whatever-
SECTION 11 of fed civil procedure for FRADULENTLY suing for defamation... and judges can fine people for filing frivilous suits!
Challenge this biatch and get him slapped the fuck down.
Good points, but lets talk about this case... (Score:5, Funny)
You obviously don't understand how this works...
you are correct, sir! I thought my clarification (IANALBMWISTBO) meant that heretofor be ignored as a raving moron!
Instead you get paperwork out the wazzo, all billed at 200 dollars an hour. Few companies, every the very rich are willing to even deal with it
How much paper work does it take for a law firm to send a letter saying "Dear Mr Novak. BRING IT THE FUCK ON. Mr. I Sue-you, esquire"
He doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.
lets look at this case- this isn't about SONY who can TOTALLY write off $30mill or that there may be a technical point of merit,
this is about Mr and Mrs domain name holder standing their ground. Novak is suing pro se, so defend yourself pro se. Counter sue pro se.
You won't have to argue in front of the judge, s/he will spend too much time ripping Novak a new one for this frivilous shit!
Yes lawyers are taught that going in front of a judge is the worst thing. But I can't imagine a lawyer saying "wow, this guy is filing all this stuff. I'm scared. Lets' settle!" I see them saying "this is so much bullshit, that I'm gonna try to take my fees directly out of Novak's ass."
Just becuase Novak files papers doesn't mean it will get past prima facia. You sit on your ass, you don't see 1 day in the court room.
A Modern Day Morality Tale (Score:5, Insightful)
Then the man thought 'Maybe I should throw myself in from of another bicycle to get five dollars'. And so he did.
Five bicycles later, he thinks 'If I get five dollars from bicycles, I can get twenty from cars'. And he threw himself into on comming trafic.
And was squashed by a pickup truck.
Re:A Modern Day Morality Tale (Score:5, Funny)
my experience with PET WAREHOUSE dot com (Score:4, Funny)
i sent a mail to mr. novak and he told me to go eff myself with a shovel. now THAT is what i call customer service. anyway, i've got a new dog now, I called her eva braun, and i will NOT be ordering any more "OL' ROY" from PET WAREHOUSE
your buddy
--gbd
With apologies to SomethingAwful (Score:4, Funny)
Some mean person made very nasty remarks about my crappy online store. Since we now live in a world where every single whining crybaby threatens to sue somebody over the most trivial of things, I feel I want to sue a person who made some comments on their website. Sure, my knowledge of the legal system is little to none, but I really want to sue these guys because they are so mean! I have obviously never done any research on libel, or I would've learned the following information:
Ideas and opinions, whether true of false, cannot constitutionally be subject to libel claims.
However, my lawyer, who also works the night shift at the local Dairy Queen, says I can sue for MILLIONS of dollars! I tend to believe him, because I once saw him wear an expensive suit and I think that makes him smart.
Sincerely,
Mr Novak"
Free speech vs Intentionally-damaging speech... (Score:3, Interesting)
However, *maybe* (and I repeat, just maybe), if beyond any reasonable doubt the guy can prove that the people who made the first comments made them with the premeditated malicious intention of bringing down his business, then that's another matter. However that still does not give him the right to sue everyone else (if that holds in court, Microsoft could be suing the slashdot parent company on the basis that they're hosting anti-microsoft discussions by some users).
In the end, my guess is that the case can not hold in the supreme court, if it ever gets there. if he wins a few cases it's probably because he's got tons of money to spend on lawyers or just some very good lawyers, or everyone else's lawyers suck.
Mistake in comments (Pet vs. Pets Warehouse) (Score:5, Informative)
The comments are about "Pet Warehouse", which is here [petwarehouse.com] while the link is for Pets Warehouse.
What happened, according to the Salon article, linked in the original /. article is that the "s" was left off.
More understandable since Pet Warehouse is a reputable outfit predating the dotcom boom. I've dealt with them lots of times.
the best defense... (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps a good round of public boycott will enough to deter Mr. Novak from suing anyone who criticizes his store. Start by emailing all your pet-owning friends and informing them of what has happened. Ask them to stop purchasing from Petswearhouse until this kind of senseless lawsuit'ing has stopped... Also perhaps a
Basically give people information to make an informed decision.
Re:the best defense... (Score:5, Interesting)
Dear PetsWarehouseSupplier Inc.:
Hello. I would like to tell you that one of your dealers, namely PetsWarehouse.com, is costing you business.
Mr. Novak, the proprieter of said business, is in my humble opinion more about litigation against paying customers than about providing a proper venue for distributing your fine products to the public. Customers who complained publicly to others when they received poor customer service from his web based business, are being sued for $15,000,000.
Unfortunately for you, your product is prominetely displayed on the homepage of PetsWarehouse.com. As such, I conclude that you are sympathetic to Mr. Novaks lawsuits, which in my opinion are frivilous and only intended to stifle free speech and the exchange of opinions. I refuse to support any business which holds this view, so I will, in the future, refrain from purchasing any product from you, your subsidiaries or any other company affiliated with your products.
Thank you for your time,
Signed
A Former Potential Customer.
About the same as you suggest, just approaching the problem from the other end.
Soko
What did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a sad reflection of American society that it has turned into a victim culture where nobody is ever to blame for their own shortcomings but is instead a victim of the malignant actions of anyone or everyone else.
It's an easy out - why bother seriously examining where your business plan was flawed or where your process broke down when you can simply point the finger at someone else and say "I would have succeeded if it wasn't for you".
Part of the problem is that there is little to discourage malicious and/or spurious litigation. Some sort of penalty for repeatedly taking out this sort of action would be helpful but it's hard to imagine that happening any time soon.
The fact is that many companies will rather settle lawsuits like these ones before they get to court even if they are without merit. The rationale behind this is ironic - lawsuits (even ridiculous ones) bring down share prices, and which "greed is good" CEO is going to let that happen for the sake of a few thousand dollars?
Re:One thing you need to address... (Score:5, Insightful)
The McDonald's case is a bad example- do a Google [google.com] search. When people talk about tort reform they always trot out this overhyped example, as if there are no better ones to use.
That lady was originally willing to settle for $20,000 to cover medical expenses for the skin grafts, because she was broke and couldn't afford the medical bills. McDonald's made a counteroffer of $800 and refused to admit any responsibility or to adjust their thermostats. A mediator recommended settling for $225,000, but McDonald's refused and went to trial.
What inflamed the jury was the fact that McDonald's had done a risk-benefit analysis on this issue. Several hundred people had gotten burned by the coffee, and at least one burn center had requested that McDonald's turn its coffee down. But overheating the coffee improved the aroma and allowed the use of a cheaper, inferior grade of beans. (When the coffee is burning your mouth you can't taste it.) McDonald's had concluded that the risk from settling the occasional suit would not offset the profits they would make from higher sales.
It also didn't help McDonald's that they were caught lying about this and the existence of the other claims in court. The jury set compensatory damages at $200,000 minus $40,000 for the lady's own contributory negligence, and then added the cost of two days' of coffee sales- which turned out to be $2.7 million. A judge lowered that to $480,000 and it was finally settled for an undisclosed amount.
The poodle in the microwave appears to be an urban legend. [google.com] Maybe you can provide a link to a believable reference. But to me this looks like you've got issues with stupid old ladies.
Be warned that the media is extremely willing to overhype anecdotes of individuals abusing their rights to sue corporations. In fact those cases get pounced upon, like when that fat guy brought that moronic suit against fast food restaurants for making him fat. We got saturation coverage of that case. But these things go both ways. Abuses of the legal system by litigious corporations against individuals (and other corporations) are just as frequent, but they don't receive as much media attention, nor are they presented as evidence that the system is broken and in need of legislative reform.
Re: What did you expect? (Score:4, Interesting)
That's rather unfair, as Robert Novak is neither a lawyer or a reasonable sample of the society at large.
Quoting from this Long Island Business News article [libn.com]:
If all the info on the net is true (virtually all is posted by defendants), we can only hope the defendants ask the court to fine him, or some of them file an anti-slapp suit against him.
But that won't happen without donations to the defense fund, or someone with deep pockets and an interest in free speech on the internet (google??) gets involved and makes an example of Robert Novak.
Pets Warehouse (Score:5, Funny)
Mistakes (Score:3, Interesting)
New Google feature! (Score:5, Funny)
Want to know how we did it? Sure, we'll tell you! Some moron sued us and we won! We got his pet store and now it makes us a mint!
obligatory http://www.petswarehousesucks.com/ (Score:5, Informative)
Hey, RIAA - you need to hire this guy! (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's hope that no spammers pick up on his email address or mailing details:
Honestly though, how can a piece of sh*t like this guy keep taking up court time with these suits? Espscially with news sites that are merely reporting the proceedings of cases? It's ridiculous - I'm sure the RIAA are already sending him job application forms so he help them in their quest to crack down on freedom and the causes of freedom!
Re:That's a shame (Score:5, Interesting)
slashbottest@quickp.ath.cx [mailto]
-=Insert Subject =- (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope the good folks at Google countersue him, and I also hope that this spurs all the people who've had bad experiences with this place to file a group or class-action lawsuit, and I hope it hurts him good.
Does anyone know the results of the origional lawsuits? (not including the &*%(#&'s who settled)
And does anyone have the links to the legal defense fund, and any of the BB's that posted the comments? They deserve links on my homepage (made and hosted in Canada, where we don't take this kinda crap, eh?)
Now, I'm going to write the nice man an email explaining why I'll be boycotting his business, and why I'll be encouraging others to as well. Shouldn't you, too? If you have enough time to post on
(Sig 0.5b)
I'll defend your right to spew fruitless venom and baseless idiocy with my dying breath, just as you must defend my right to call you an asshole.
From what I've heard (Score:3)
He's just milking settlements, its digusting.
Nice, but not to be confused with... (Score:5, Informative)
In my experience, they are a very reliable source for all kinds of supplies, and it would be a shame for people to associate their site with this litigation crazy moron.
Treatment of Abusive Litigants (Score:4, Insightful)
This is an interesting case and I hope that the courts will take action to address these abusive legal actions. There are actually mechanisms in the law to accomplish this, ranging from a court order barring a litigant from filing further motions or actions on a certain issue to a court declaration that a litigant is characteristically abusive (I can't recall the term for this, but it is assuredly legal latinate). The latter requires the censured litigant to gain court approval before filing any further actions.
Check out the following case; it's very interesting.
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/sc94012/op
His message board! Quck before he changes it!!! (Score:5, Funny)
login: test
password: test
Feel free to post your "comments" without having to give personal details to register!!!
Costing him nothing? (Score:3, Insightful)
I notice on his website... (Score:4, Funny)
Life is tough when you're a litigious numpty.
will he be suing the BBB next? (Score:5, Informative)
The Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan New York, Inc. has provided an unsatisfactory rating, the Bureau's lowest, for PetsWarehouse. The BBB site states:
"This firm operates an affiliated business on the internet offering products through its Copaigue location. This firm has received 21 complaints in the last 36 months, of which 11 of those 21 complaints were filed in the last 12 months. Complaints to the Bureau have alleged: 1) nondelivery of ordered merchandise and 2) credit or billing problems. This firm has a pattern of not responding to complaints to its attention by the Bureau."
Re:will he be suing the BBB next? (Score:4, Interesting)
ding! give that user a banana!
Long Island Business News [libn.com] reports:
Is there a "Pro Se For Dummies" out there? (Score:3, Interesting)
If some wench with a few hours' paralegal experience can cause problems, why can't the average Joe use the same technique in defense?
In spite of the saying "a man representing himself has a fool for a client", I assume a person with nothing to loose should be able to defend himself.
Take me, for example. I make a modest salary, have a home, wife/kids, car etc. I'd be hard pressed to come up with more than a grand or two to retain a lawyer if I were ever sued. For a civil suit like this, what could I really loose? I can't fathom a judge forcing a family out on the street, or taking their only means of transport. Can a judgement that would make a family destitute really be made against them? (Cite/link example, if there are, please.)
Obviously, IANAL. I'm just curious. Is the only option for us middle class folk to either settle for what we can afford or start a defense fund? I can't accept that -- it says that society sucks far more than I currently believe.
Would some lawyer (or someone who's gone the pro se route) speak up. An online resource (one really geard towards pro se defense) would be awesome.
/. effect. (Score:5, Funny)
But you /. freakos are maxing out his bandwidth, apparently. Don't any of you DARE set auto-reload on that site! That's MY strategy.
This reverse-psychology was brought to you by...
check out the website (Score:5, Funny)
Now, don't everybody hit that up a lot because selecting everything with 'a' from their database, and then jumping to the 20th page is a lot of work and it would cause unneeded strain on their website.
However, it's very useful if you are interested in viewing the depth of the petswarehouse catalog.
PetsWarehouse vs. Scientology? (Score:4, Funny)
Idiot loser (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't sue people for stating their opinion, or even for criticizing you or your services harshely or unfairly.
You can only sue people for defamation if they knowingly state a stark falsity about you or your company. Saying the service sucks -- which it probably does -- is a matter of opinion, not a factual statement.
If someone said that something as a matter of fact about him or his company that he can prove is false, that may be grounds for a defamation lawsuite. However, unless he can show that such statement caused him a loss of business, he has little or no grounds for any punative damages.
The fact that this guy seems to be making his living by suing people without grounds and hoping they settle seems statement enough about the quality of his services.
Is it really "winning", when... (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess you could always live with print advertising... that really works well on the Internet, doesn't it?
Clue: URLs in a print advertisements aren't "clickable"...
-- Terry
This is not what it looks like! (Score:4, Informative)
I hate to say it, but Mr. Novak may actually have a valid trademark suit here!
Re:This is not what it looks like! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you really read the lawsuit, you'd see that he's suing because the search terms "pets warehouse" (two words) are bringing up the competing sites. This is as much copyright infringement as the dictionary, which also contains the word "pets" and the word "warehouse". The sites in question have not put the word "petswarehouse" or "petswarehouse.com" in their metatags -- they've put "pets" and "warehouse".
Important links. (Score:5, Interesting)
Other defense fund page [thedefensefund.org]
Defense Fund merchandise [cafepress.com]
Discussion forum for the lawsuit [compuserve.com]
PetsWarehouseSucks.com [petswarehousesucks.com] (Novak bought up the
Aquatic Plants digest [actwin.com]
Google search with many relevant results [google.com]
Rec.Aquaria.Freshwater.Plants [google.com]
Between all those pages, you should be able to find plenty of links to archives of the messages in question, full court documents, links to news coverage of the story, etc. etc. etc. If you have any interest in aquatic plants or planted aquariums, check the link to the Aquatic Plants mailing list, where all this began. You'll find all the original posts, plus some early discussion of the lawsuit. Also, you can find plenty of stuff in the archive of rec.aquaria.freshwater.plants, including the rantings and ravings of Mr. Novak himself, as well as posts from a few people who support him and happen to have EXACTLY the same spelling and grammer that he does...
There's all kinds of fun things to discover about this case. For example, the NY Better Business Bureau gave PetsWarehouse its worst possible rating for its business practices. Mr. Novak claims that the BBB is *actually* talking about the retail store, not the website, and as a result, he's threatened to actually SUE the Better Business Bureau.
Mr. Novak is on very shaky legal ground. He's been reprimanded by judges (since he's filed three seperate lawsuits and several ammendments, there are a lot of judges involved) for not having a clue what he's doing. He told a magazine that he considers suing people to be "his hobby", and a profitable one, because he lives right down the street from the courthouse and most people can't afford to travel to his venue to fight the lawsuits. When Slashdot first covered the lawsuit in April, someone posted a comment sayign that they new Mr. Novak, and he told the poster that he has a lawyer in the family who gives him advice on filing baseless lawsuits for extra income.
Also, one of Mr. Novak's big claims in this lawsuit is "trademark infringement" (since we ALL know that saying "I don't like XYZ" is a violation of XYZ's trademark, right??), however, there's some question of whether he owns the trademark at all. He used Pets Warehouse as a "common law" trademark (IANAL, but I think that means he never actually filed the trademark, he just started using it and that entitles him to some legal protection), however, when he filed bankruptcy in the 90's, he didn't list any intellectual property that he wanted to keep on his bankruptcy application, thus it's entirely likely that he lost any trademark he might have had on the name during the bankruptcy.
He also refuses to actually serve papers against any of the defendents who live in California, because California has a strong SLAPP law that would bite him in the ass he if tried to actually bring any California residents into the lawsuit.
I'm not the only one who thinks all this is very, very crazy.
ack! (Score:3, Funny)
Malicious Prosecution (Score:4, Insightful)
This individual *clearly* is in it for the money, and nothing else. Aside from a possible slander charge against the original poster, if what was said was in fact false; Google, nor any other news site, has any business being named in the law suit.
Something to the effect of "common carrier" status should apply to these sites. Unless they posted their own commentary that was specifically derrogatory to the owner of that web site, they have no grounds for the law suit; and even if commentary was posted, by the time the lawsuit is reaching national coverage for it's stupidity, you've lost any right to complain about it.
Google, being the group with the greatest amount of cash, should counter-sue the individual in question for being an asshat and attempting to exploit the system. If I recall correctly (IANAL), exploting the courts for personal gain is CONTEMPT and you go to jail for that, instantly.
My $0.02.
petswarehouse.com is down, but why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you think this is due to the /. effect, or is it because of the UUNET/WorldCom debacle?
At any rate, I wonder how much money it just cost him to have his site unreachable for basically an entire business day...
Re:"It's unrealistic" (Score:4, Funny)
As they say up here, "mange la merde!"
From Associated Press: (Score:3, Funny)
'The amount of hate mail I get has virtually trippled in the last year,' Mr. Novak said in a statement to the press, 'this has got to stop.'.
The damages in the suit are unspecified yet, but mr Novak's lawyers have stated that one of the remedies they will seek is that Mr. Novak no 2 have his name legally changed to something less confusing. They alledge that he changed his name to "Robert Novak" in 1996, just as Bob Novak was gaining prominence for his appearances on CNN.
'We have received reports that his name before that was "Roberto Perdikakis"' a representative of mr. Novak's said Wednesday morning.